ok...ok. Honestly, I think both arguments are flawed regarding gun laws. But if you own a gun for self defense, why are there those with more than one? why would you need an assault riffle and so on, why not just an ordinary hand gun? Isn't that the point where the commodity of owning a gun becomes less self protection and more for leisure.

I'm don't really side with either end, as there isn't really any fix to the crime issues in america, but I don't agree with the argument "the gun didn't kill the person" statement. You're providing a killer with a killing machine, the use of a gun is quick and fast and requires much less pre-meditation to do than physically attack someone with a knife. I dunno, There are pro's an cons to either end, but it's really those two things that piss me off about the pro gun side.

Some people also use them as a hobby for competition shooting or hunting. "Assault Rifles" are illegal without the proper paper work and permits and if for some reason you wish to move them from your home to somewhere else you must notify the police. An AR15 is a civilian model which is a semi-auto meaning that it fires one round per trigger pull. There are other rifles that do the same but aren't mentioned because they don't look "scary" like the AR15 does.

Owning more than one has a few advantages, besides simply enjoying it. For example, you can have a .22 and a couple .45s. The .22 would be for target practice and the .45s would be for personal protection. When one runs out, you can switch to the other, or you can have them in different palces in your home so that you always have easy access to one in case of emergency.